Mercury News editorial: Conspiracy theories blur Benghazi issues

Mercury News Editorial

Posted:
11/23/2012 01:11:10 PM PST

Updated:
11/25/2012 02:45:35 PM PST

There were catastrophic failings at the Benghazi consulate Sept. 11, when four American diplomats, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were murdered. But the tragedy's aftermath has become so absurdly politicized that Congress, the White House and national intelligence agencies are being diverted from finding out what really went wrong.

Here are some of our questions: Why was security so lax at the consulate after Stevens himself had asked for reinforcements? Who denied Stevens' request, and why? Was it because of Congressional budget cuts? Would additional security have prevented the attack?

Instead of focusing on these issues, President Barack Obama's opponents are accusing him of trying to cover up a connection to al-Qaida to protect his re-election campaign. The idea is that the linkage would have undermined his claim to have hobbled the terrorist network. That's absurd.

Obama never claimed to have eliminated al-Qaida. And despite reports to the contrary, it remains unclear that al-Qaida was directly responsible.

Accounts at the time, including comments made to a New York Times journalist who was there, indicate that the attack was conducted by Ansar al-Shariah, a local Islamist group, and was inspired by anger at an anti-Islam video that had been the subject of an earlier protest in Egypt.

Advertisement

Proponents of the cover-up theory -- including Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham and dozens of congressmen -- say statements by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice tying the attack to the video were deliberately misleading. They have accused the White House of editing CIA talking points she used for political purposes.

But last week the director of national intelligence said the editing came from his office. According to a senior intelligence official quoted in the Los Angeles Times, "The adjustments were focused on producing talking points that provided the best information available at the time, protected sensitive details and reflected the evolving nature of rapidly incoming intelligence."

In other words, intelligence agencies didn't want to jump to conclusions without all the relevant information. McCain, Graham and others ought to applaud that approach. Had the Bush administration been more responsible with regard to rumors of weapons of mass destruction, the Iraq War might never have happened.

There are even more outlandish claims: that former CIA Director David Petraeus' resignation was part of the cover-up, and that the State Department and even Obama watched the attack unfold -- live, Osama bin Laden-style -- and did nothing. This is right up there with the theory that George W. Bush was behind the original Sept. 11 attacks.

The craziness is distracting agencies and Congress from finding answers to legitimate questions. It's time for McCain and other leaders of stature to put fact finding above political posturing. The election is over. And it's a little early to start on the next one.